Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Well, this isn't very deep, but it'll make my point for me. The jin skills that are the physical manifestation of "the Qi of Heaven and the Qi of Earth" (something Ueshiba referred to in his writings, BTW) are the one jin. Everyone who knows anything knows that. The "Chanssujin" (reeling-silk jin) of the Chen-style is called by them as "the basic jin from which the Chen-style gets its power". But then again, everyone knows that the chanssujin is composed of the four directions of the basic jin: peng, lu, ji, an. So anyone who would build a thesis or misunderstand the difference between chanssujin being commonly called the main (most important) jin of the Chen style and mixing that up with the "one jin", simply shows what they don't know. There's no way to hide it once a statement like that gets out in public.

Of course, there are a *number* of other similarly-revealing statements archived in AW and some other forums that do that same sort of inadvertant disclosure of what someone really understands. Now if someone makes fairly basic mistakes and then compounds it by saying they've never read anything deep, you can imagine how it looks to any of a number of knowledgeable readers who wonder about even the ability to understand anything deep if simple errors are made.

Incidentally, this whole topic of reeling-silk/spiralling expands deeper and deeper, making any discussion of "spiralling" another topic that can easily show what someone knows. But of course you already know that, right?

OK, your turn. Here's a very simple one. You misunderstood about the "one jin" (basic jin) and how it's a duality (the jin that starts from the feet, is controlled by the waist, and expressed in the fingers). See if you can explain the physical basis for that duality.

Mike Sigman

BTW, Dan. When you get into the personal comments about my "questionable abilities", be aware that I've also heard a number of stories about peoples' "questionable abilities", but I try to leave the personal smears out of a discussion, as much as possible. Please try to do the same. It's sort of Chicken***t, although I doubt you really understand that. If you can maintain a functional, in-depth discussion, please try to do so.

BTW.... I asked for one example of a detailed posting from you in my previous post .... you seem to have forgotten already.

Quote:

Where.... show me one instance of real and useable information that is correct. Maybe I've missed it. If so, I'll apologize.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

I made no request from you-therefore the sincerity is not an issue.
Aiki in yo ho has not one thing to do with that Eric. It's a completely unrelated topic to what you wrote.
That was sincere by the way.

Really? You say so? I am not convinced you even understand what I wrote -- that does not mean it is the exercise in obfuscation you imply -- it just means the subject matter is dense and precise -- appropriately so for anything martially useful -- if it were shallow and sloppy it would not be martially effective.

Show, in any way you care to demonstrate it analytically that the statement is "completely unrelated." I am pleased to wait.

Your "cold blooded and analytical" advice doesn't work for anyone if you (or anyone) merely dictate the concepts and terms of the analysis -- especially because those terms are not objectively defined -- as Exhibit 1 witness your argument over the meaning of Aiki in yo with Mike (not to mention watashi-wa)...

Analytical thought requires objective concepts. Actual analytical thought requires this -- it is not optional or a matter of personal style. Not numbers or equations necessarily-- but objective terms. Mine are --- as precise as I can make them. Anyone can look them up -- independent of me -- to analyze what they mean and how they may or may not describe certain actions.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Right back to your same old routine, Mike. Another dodge.
Why do I say this

Quote:

Other than you "quoting" other sources-I've never read a single word of anything "deep" coming from -you- personally.

Because it's what you do over and over. You just did it again on the transmission thread to Toby:

Quote:

willow quotes would be the usual general Chinese quotes from cosmology about using the qi/forces of Heaven and Earth, harmony with the forces of nature (use the forces; no resistance), and movement within stillness (be interested to compare notes on that one, but don't want to write an exposition).

I'll bet you'll let Toby go first...for some very obvious reasons.
Anyway, ya just keep dodging nuts and bolts answers and instead recite Chinese classics and ask other people to describe things they do for you and then tell people "Well that's not bad but....."

I assume then that you can't explain Aiki in yo ho in plain language as I suspected all along? As "everyone knows,Mike;" it's pretty straight forward stuff. I'm sure once someone explains it to you- you'll tell them you already know that too, and have mastered that as well.
Transparent as glass.
Dan

P.S. Your actual fighting skills with IP/Aiki are questionable. It's not an insult, it's just fact. Do you spar with experienced MMA people regularly, semi-regularly? Go free style with various weapons; sticks, knives, etc since you developed these skills? No? Well there ya go. That's what I meant by "mud on your boots." No problem, I've seen it before, it just help explains the internet aggression.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Its not hard Eric. It's a completely different topic alltogether.
I'll be in Flrodia in Feb Eric. Would you like to compare notes and explain what you meant in person? Dinner and drinks on me.
And that is sincere
Dan

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

Right back to your same old routine, Mike. Another dodge.
Why do I say this

Because it's what you do over and over. You just did it again on the transmission thread to Toby:

I'll bet you'll let Toby go first...for some very obvious reasons.
Anyway, ya just keep dodging nuts and bolts answers and instead recite Chinese classics and ask other people to describe things they do for you and then tell people "Well that's not bad but....."

The problem with those inane comments is that I've explained, publicly shown and taught (and they're on video, videos that you've seen and commented on yourself) all those things. What are you trying to do.... pretend that my entire history has disappeared because you have some desperate urge to attack me personally? Why don't you appeal to the public and ask if I've ever explained anything in depth to any of them? I'm not sure who you're think you're posturing to with this absurd nonsense, but think about it a second..... there is a huge number of people that you have to know realize you're simply blowing smoke about never having explained anything.

Quote:

I assume then that you can't explain Aiki in yo ho in plain language as I suspected all along? As "everyone knows,Mike;" it's pretty straight forward stuff. I'm sure once someone explains it to you- you'll tell them you already know that too, and have mastered that as well.
Transparent as glass.

Someone else just asked me the same question I'm thinking, Dan, so let me ask you.... do you really think that Aiki in yo ho is something that is outside of basic internal strength skills? In other words, did you understand my response that there is no big deal about Aiki in yo ho? You've seen my written, at-length descriptions of "aiki" in numerous posts on AikiWeb and I've asked in the past why you treat aiki as a "thing" when it's really just a variation of basic jin. You've never been able to answer. Yet aiki, as you term it, is simply a usage of jin. Do you want to deny that?

Quote:

P.S. Your actual fighting skills with IP/Aiki are questionable. It's not an insult, it's just fact.

They're not questionable by you, Dan. You're once again simply looking for some way to smear. You're like these clowns that go around looking for some anecdote (usually something that happened in a controlled demonstration, but they hop on it anyway) about Chen Xiaowang, Ueshiba, Liang Shouyu, etc., etc., not because there's any interest in discussing what really happened or principles, but because they're looking for some way to put someone down. Like I said, pretty low class.

What big names have you defeated? That's the first question the Chinese ask about some loudmouth that brags incessantly about himself as a fighter. So what big names have you defeated, Dan, if your fighting is so important a proof of what you can do? Are you unbeatable? If not, then anyone who beats you in a real fight has got better I.S. credentials than you do, according to the rules you're trying to set. Or can you see the logical trap that you're setting for yourself? It's the same bs you did when you denigrated Ueshiba (an old Ueshiba) and let on how your skills are better than his were. But hey... you seem intent on some sort of desperate trivializing everyone you've met or heard of as not being quite up to par with you. So good luck, little man.

And by the way... you haven't answered a single substantive question I've asked. You simply can't. You made a chump of yourself with that comment about the one jin on RSF and not understanding about the famous jin quote.... so I'll ask the obvious question again: how can you claim to spot something "deep" when you're on record numerous times not understanding the superficial and obvious? My posts on "jin" and "aiki" are archived, so you can't say there's no answer. Your numerous sudden silences when confronted with an embarrassing revelation about your posts are archived, too.

Last time I'm asking.... either post something substantive or just live with it that you're fully and completely exposed now. I'm tired of the nonsense. Let Jun close the thread.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

What big names have you defeated? That's the first question the Chinese ask about some loudmouth that brags incessantly about himself as a fighter. So what big names have you defeated, Dan, if your fighting is so important a proof of what you can do? Are you unbeatable? If not, then anyone who beats you in a real fight has got better I.S. credentials than you do, according to the rules you're trying to set. Or can you see the logical trap that you're setting for yourself? It's the same bs you did when you denigrated Ueshiba (an old Ueshiba) and let on how your skills are better than his were. But hey... you seem intent on some sort of desperate trivializing everyone you've met or heard of as not being quite up to par with you. So good luck, little man.

Last time I'm asking.... either post something substantive or just live with it that you're fully and completely exposed now. I'm tired of the nonsense. Let Jun close the thread.

Mike Sigman

Mark kindly suggested that Dan and Mike, in the spirit of the holiday season go to their perspective corners and stop it already. Mike, the Master Debater, consistently violates his own rules about personal attacks. He has simply fails to impress anybody in his role as some Master Debater.

Mike likes to talk the talk, and now maybe it is time that he walks his talk.

Okay Mike, You present yourself as somebody. Why don't we arrange a private meeting between you and Dan so that both of you can both talk it out and work it out. Hell, I will open my house and dojo up to both of you to finally meet and step up to the proverbial plate. I would assume that at least Dan will step up to the proverbial plate and put his words to the test. How about you?

I frankly am sick and tired of both of you going at each other in the manner in which you both do. I would not be surprised that a poll would show that a majority of us feel the same way.

So Mike, If Dan is the "little man" and if you are not willing to walk your talk, what does that make you? My money is on that Dan would be willing to have such a meeting. Dan seems to have no problems meeting others to check things out for himself. I frankly think that you will not stand behind your own words. Heck, if you do, I can promise both of you that I will wine and dine both of you in a wonderful manner. Who knows, maybe, just maybe such a meeting would stop the kind of back-and-forth that is going on. Why not leave Jun out of this and handle it directly for a change?

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Josh Phillipson wrote:

gp 2/ The go up through the soleus/rear-groin/psoas/dantien/center line on the 'inside/front' of the body
Then 'choose' with bodyskill how to combine them to 'meet' in a useful way with the center/intent/dantien area. Which one is up and which one is the down... is 'up' to you?

More interesting would have been is these question'
re: "where is the middle, where the up and down meet"
Do all arts have the same answer to this question?
Are there 'standard' answers to this question in JPN and CN arts? Is one more likely to 'answer' it in one way or the other?
How does 6-harmony movement answer this? How does Aikido/DR answer this?
/random thoughts

i am not as well versed as many of the internal folks here. couldn't tell you about yin-yang or in-yo-ho or any of those things. me no speaking chinese or japanese or many other languages. we can miscommunicate even with face-to-face, much less over the internet. so i'll use the common language here, i.e. english, at least the english that i know.

i think we need to strip everything down to the basic. if you look at the human body (for you folks who are aliens among us, please ignore this, because it won't apply to you) , we are basically a bundle of sticks, tied together with sinew and muscle and fat, wrapped with fascia, and covered with hide and hair. then controlled by a sophisticate computer with vast neural networks. our basic configuration isn't optimal for staying up-right, much less doing anything else.
so most of the time, our muscles tried to keep us up-right. our muscle fiber pulls, do not push. most of the times our muscles worked against each other to keep us up-right, and we are in a precarious balancing act all the time. so, some of the main equations we need to solve are,
1. how do we deal with incoming force?
2. how do we efficiently generate and focus a force?
3. how do we maintain balance, whether we are on our feet or our back or ..., while doing the above two points?

regardless the origin of the IS, whether from Chinese or Japanese or Swahili or wherever, they all have to deal with such questions above; they all have to deal with how human body constructed and its limitations. then there is various physical laws that we have to abide on this world, for example, gravity.

how do you deal with incoming force? spread it out to as much surface area as you can. the earth has large surface if your feet are on it, a big wall if your back is against it, another person if that person happens to be within reach, and so on. in order to do that, you have to take all the slacks out of your body (bundle of sticks, ... remember?). how do you take the slacks our of your body? winding, tightening, binding your whole body into one unit so it can distribute force through your entire body and to whatever that body touches.

how do we efficiently generate and focus a force? straight muscle, but we have counter-balance muscle which oppose; thus, lessen the generated force. what-if we could lessen the counter-balancing affect and using every muscle, sinew, fascia, skin, hair, bone, pretty much our entire body to perform an action, for example, picking up a glass of water. if we can do that, then we can throw, kick, punch, lift, walk, run, kiss, and so on with our entire being; thus, we have "one moves all move".

how do we maintain balance while doing 1 and 2? every force has an equal and opposing force to stay neutral, thus in balance. a push toward the front, need an equal push toward the back. a push up needs an opposing push down, your body is in the middle.

since our body controls by a computer and neural network, that's where the whole mind/intent comes about. so the first part is to train your body to become one unit that can do as the mind directed. most folks methink could spend their lifetime on learning how-to taking the slack out of their body. then the next is how-to generate power with their body, by taking the slack out of their body in segment so that power generate like a whip through their entire body, and at the point of release, their entire body now have no slack but full of power. now do all of that with your will.

tough works. and i am rambling. so for those who have strong will, please put my name in it too.

Mike and Dan, I'll take on both of you. I will let you know that i make a mean curry. Let see how your internal take that!

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

BTW, Dan. When you get into the personal comments about my "questionable abilities", be aware that I've also heard a number of stories about peoples' "questionable abilities", but I try to leave the personal smears out of a discussion, as much as possible. Please try to do the same. It's sort of Chicken***t, although I doubt you really understand that. If you can maintain a functional, in-depth discussion, please try to do so.

Really Mike? If that's the case, can you explain to me the functional how to in the other thread where you basicaly dedicated a post showing Dan "trivializing" Ueshiba's skills? Can you explain to me how I can some practical, training or even "academic" (as you put it) from that thread? In fact, can you point to me the practical value in anything you wrote in this thread?

Unless stated otherwise, all wisdom, follies, harshness, malice that may spring up from my writing are attributable only to me.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

ooh. that was good Phi
i agree as far as i see

Quote:

Phi Truong wrote:

so most of the time, our muscles tried to keep us up-right. our muscle fiber pulls, do not push.

about this; pushing can (re-)introduce slack into the body. you can 'biggify' and/ use windings (&(stacking)/breath) to (re-)remove the slack and swallow/absorb that (delta) back into the body. then use that bone-stacking fajin thing you wrote, to get it out. 'generate harmony'. just some ideas.

Heh. random droppings.

you wrote: Q:how do we efficiently generate and focus a force? A:straight muscle
pulse muscle?. maybe deltas are more important than absolute offsets. the changes.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

Its not hard Eric. It's a completely different topic alltogether.
I'll be in Flrodia in Feb Eric. Would you like to compare notes and explain what you meant in person? Dinner and drinks on me.
And that is sincere
Dan

Is explaining the issue ? If so, being in person ought not matter. Tallahassee or west?

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

As an outsider to the "group" here, but someone who is inspired by the conversation and sincerely wants to learn more, the bickering is disappointing. This topic is the single most interesting thing that I've read relating to martial arts in a decade or more and it's sad to see it being brought down by the same subtle trolling that I can find on a million other sites around the web...

I'm supposed to be the target audience for this stuff! The same person you talked about in threads 2-3 years ago that you wanted to be interested in it and who should want to learn more. Now it's hard enough to get any information at all!! It's like the whole concept of it has regressed back to the point of you being worthy or dedicated enough to be worth discussing it with in the first place. I'm almost afraid to ask questions for fear of being regarded as some scrub who's looking for a "handout". Which is ironic considering how often that was discussed as being the reason these concepts and applications haven't been more wide spread over the decades. How the hell can you say that you want people to learn this stuff and then have that attitude towards outsiders who want to ask questions?

Anyway, like I said, it's hard enough to get clear information as it is, it's even harder when the channels are clogged up with two people who actually know something, bickering back and forth over nonsense. As your supposed target audience, I beg you, give it a rest!

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Josh Phillipson wrote:

about this; pushing can (re-)introduce slack into the body. you can 'biggify' and/ use windings (&(stacking)/breath) to (re-)remove the slack and swallow/absorb that (delta) back into the body. then use that bone-stacking fajin thing you wrote, to get it out. 'generate harmony'. just some ideas.

you wrote: Q:how do we efficiently generate and focus a force? A:straight muscle
pulse muscle?. maybe deltas are more important than absolute offsets. the changes.

can't push. our muscle is either in contraction (pull) state or non-contraction. a push to your chest is the same as a pull to your back. essentially, our body is a large and complex pulley system. adding to the complication, some muscles are fast twitch and some, slow, i.e. they don't contract at the same speed.

to generate force, can't just use muscle alone, although a large percentage of it. one thing about human body, because of the construct, we have springiness built-in as shock absorber. so what-if, we can use the shock absorber as part of the power generation equation to augment the muscle? what-if we can take the incoming force, be it from external or internal, and store it in the shock absorber to be released along with our muscle? our biggest shock absorber? our middle. how to build a good absorber? breathing techniques.

there are various standing meditation techniques that are shared between Chinese and Japanese. it really comes down to how to control your body muscle to use the least to up hold the body, and creating opposing force, and build shock absorber. so if you stand in meditation and imagine someone pushes against you chest, then you can increase the shock absorbing capability through certain type of breathing, then you mind direct you body to relax certain muscle and activate other muscle to counter the push.

if you twisted your body parts certain way, you feel you have a more connected body, i.e. winding/twisting/binding. you see similarity in various arts in the way they move, for example, corkscrew punch. the corkscrew motion wind/twist/bind your whole arm into one unit instead of a bundle of loose sticks. you will also see breathing techniques accompany such practice, because of the shock absorber affect in order to augment the muscle power and to handle the recoil force (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Josh Phillipson wrote:

Hi Erick, why do you think it is consensus that `it has to be felt`? Do you think everyone else lacked imagination?

Good questions. But you need to unpack your premises.

1) You presume I disagree; 2) You assume that we read "IHTBF" the same way; 3) You presume that there is only one way to understand the "it" being felt -- i.e. -- the 'consensus' view; and 4) You presume the consensus has a broadly coherent form. Each of those is premises is false or questionable

They don't lack imagination, far from it. Consensus is simply not knowledge -- it is authority by dint of nothing but numbers -- a collective feelingabout that knowledge (lit. - "consensus" = "feeling together"), which is no more liable to be right than any individual feeling about that knowledge. Consensus once was that man could not fly, and that it was not possible to have a computer smaller than a largish bedroom, either...

A counter-assertion to me that, "You're wrong" without a demonstration of asserted error is not very persuasive to me when I work with and through the ideas I express here for real practical benefit for myself and others. Are they the best? Probably not -- but are they correct as far as they go? -- Yes. Demonstrably. Are they objectively based -- absolutely. The fact that I can accurately describe action and thus correct bad action routinely is better reason than anyone's opinion - or any number of them. I could be wrong, but you have to show me where.

People are far too committed to their subjective expressions of their subjective impressions. That's why things break down over description -- moreso even than ego -- of which there is certainly no lack. There is more than one set of people to feel as far as IHTBF. There are also people who have elements and degrees which can be felt regardless of the level of consistent application. IF -- one has an objective reference to recognize what is the same and what is not.

And finally there is one's own body and that of one's partners to study -- directly. I am constantly amazed at the disconnect between the admonishment of the need do solo work -- all the while denying that anyone who just carefully observes their own movement can learn much of anything on one's own. It makes no sense -- even though I grant that what we speak of, as practical mechanics goes, seems counter-intuitive.

The possibility that one can learn to apply the perspective gained from learning other counter-intuitive mechanics and apply that turn of mind to this, is disregarded. There is more than one way to come to knowledge of something -- and more than one way to express that knowledge.

Point being, if the "feeling" in IHTBF were objectively described it would be more accessible -- to everyone -- than any subjective consensus, however broad, will ever allow. It would depend on agreement about "the thing" felt -- and not agreement on our personal impressions of how we feel and express that feeling. Don't get me wrong, one can glean a lot from people's expression of subjective impressions, (Morihei's Doka are a rich vein in this regard, actually) but they remain subjective and there is no substitute for actual objective description.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Phi Truong wrote:

if you twisted your body parts certain way, you feel you have a more connected body, i.e. winding/twisting/binding. you see similarity in various arts in the way they move, for example, corkscrew punch. the corkscrew motion wind/twist/bind your whole arm into one unit instead of a bundle of loose sticks. you will also see breathing techniques accompany such practice, because of the shock absorber affect in order to augment the muscle power and to handle the recoil force (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).

Acceleration is a derivative. Rewrite in terms of momentum, and they are all primary quantities, mass and velocity and potential and actual motion can be treated equivalently:

F= dp/dt

= (either) v*dm/dt

= (or) m*dv/dt (or m*a)

= (m1*v1-m2v2)/dt

Effective mass (moment) changes as the moment arm changes -- i.e -- as the center of rotations shifts position relative to loads.

Effective velocity changes as the radius of rotations changes relative to loads.

Much simpler to see in action than acceleration. The point is not in the equations, but to see that they objectively describe the change of centers of rotation and the change of radius -- in combination. One can learn to feel these changes remotely through the body of another person -- which is kokyu tanden ho. Which only works if the body is coherently connected and without discontinuities that block action and structural sensation.

If one "biggifies" one increases moment arm and effective mass and increases radius and decreases effective velocity -- if one "contractifies" one decreases moment arm (effective mass) and decreases radius and thus increases velocity. But they work in spherical terms (read Kisshomaru again) S- and T- normal mode spheroidal waves. Imagine twisting a nerfball -- it torques and shrinks -- it untorques and expands. Then one can treat 'biggificaiton' and 'contractification' in progressive terms -- like a snapped whip to concentrate or its converse -- a wave runup on a beach -- to dissipate.

consensus? from me? i am a nobody in this world of martial arts, much less internal stuffs. Erick, most of the stuffs you wrote went right over my head. i am not as learned and much less in imagination. maybe your model rightly describes the process. but you have to discuss that with the experts, as i mentioned, i am a dabbler san expertise. one thing though, do you want shear stress and torque apply to the various joints in your body? how would your model work, for example, with middle of your body where, according to some of the so-called classics of martial arts, your shoulders should align with your hips, i.e. you are not suppose to twist your body to deal with incoming force or to release a force? who know, the classic could be wrong, and that's too a possibility.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Jason Casteel wrote:

I'm supposed to be the target audience for this stuff! The same person you talked about in threads 2-3 years ago that you wanted to be interested in it and who should want to learn more. Now it's hard enough to get any information at all!! It's like the whole concept of it has regressed back to the point of you being worthy or dedicated enough to be worth discussing it with in the first place. I'm almost afraid to ask questions for fear of being regarded as some scrub who's looking for a "handout". Which is ironic considering how often that was discussed as being the reason these concepts and applications haven't been more wide spread over the decades. How the hell can you say that you want people to learn this stuff and then have that attitude towards outsiders who want to ask questions?

Hello Jason
Can you tell me who this is targeted at?

Quote:

Anyway, like I said, it's hard enough to get clear information as it is, it's even harder when the channels are clogged up with two people who actually know something, bickering back and forth over nonsense. As your supposed target audience, I beg you, give it a rest!

Seems the general consensus is I get attacked, I defend.
Asking someone "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a well known example of journalistic baiting and disshonest discussion.
You might note that I generally don't ask for information, much less chase people around and chastize them for a) not answering b) not making all of their own examples fit in with known and accepted (Japanese) terms and methods that they are unfamilair with.
Consider that the conversation killing has a point source, an origination point...and you might key into what others already have figuered out and now know to be true.

If I ever made people feel like "scrubs" for asking questions you have my apologies-though I cannot think of when that might have happened.
Happy holidays
Cheers
Dan

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

Seems the general consensus is I get attacked, I defend.

Er, sorry, but you posted the Rum Soaked Fist post about me and it was incorrect. I.e., you initiated it. The discussion is about similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese martial arts. My position is, and has been for years, that there is no substantive difference between Chinese and Japanese I.S. skills simply because they work on the same basic principles. "Aiki in yo ho", "Ju", "Reiki no ho", "Kokyu", Misogi breathing, and many other terms Japanese sound "Japanese", but the physical actions, skills, and practices, give or take some minor variations in the process but the not the principle, are to be found in Chinese martial arts. The most I can get a really knowledgeable Chinese expert to say is the word "similar" rather than "same", but that's only because of the variations. The principles are the same.

And of course even a cursory investigation into what a, for instance, Japanese expert is demonstrating and a Chinese expert is demonstrating demonstrates quickly that things *must* be the same if they are demonstrating the same I.S. skill.

The only place I can see an argument would be when someone *thinks* the same thing is being shown, but they misunderstand the point. As an example, a Yiquan person may stand against a push to his forearm while a Tohei-analogue from a Japanese m.a. does the same apparent thing. However, the Japanese person may think that he is demonstrating the grounding of the force of the push and the Chinese person will acknowledge that he is to a degree doing that, too, but he's also showing something else that is not as obvious. I.e., my point is that if there are differences, it's probably just a level of degree; the basic principles will and must be the same.

Re: Some similarities in Internal Body Skills between Chinese and Japanese arts

Quote:

Phi Truong wrote:

how would your model work, for example, with middle of your body where, according to some of the so-called classics of martial arts, your shoulders should align with your hips, i.e. you are not suppose to twist your body to deal with incoming force or to release a force? who know, the classic could be wrong, and that's too a possibility.

If you allow the body to twist, you convert an applied load to a torsional motion -- At that end of that motion then the body reaches its limit of motion and must take up any remaining load in torsional shear stress, but -- and this is the key --without any further reserves of motion or allowable structural stress. You are stuck with whatever structural resistance you have left in relation to the remaining applied load at that point.

If, conversely, the body is maintained to accept the torsional stress -- without the torsional motion -- then the limb/torso acts as a torsion tube. See this diagram

When this torsion is received as stress without initial movement then any element of the tube's surface wants squish in one diagonal stress line (L hand to R foot, for example) and stretch in the other diagonal (R hand to L foot). Look at the stresses on the square element of the torsion tube above, as though it were your torso (good name, huh?)with the stresses extending diagonally along those lines and along the opposing arm and leg. The preferred terminology in this crowd for this aspect seems to be "windings."

Rather than relieve the torsional load stress by allowing the torsional movement, allow this torsional shear (contradictory forces or stress if you prefer that terminology) to develop.
This response gives reserves of both displacement AND allowable stress in your structure so you can apply either or both in succession or combination. Then, in the case of a push -- relieve it by
1) isolating the load in one diagonal (squishing for a push) and then 2) extending back into the source of the load along the "stretchy" diagonal -- as a result the applied torque becomes converted and transferred to the opponent rather than you -- assuming you are properly connected to transfer it -- which is another topic.

The same works in inverse terms in a pull.

What I just described is the equivalent in stress interaction of ikkyo in motion. Just treated stress and motion as equivalent and interchangeable. The point is to imagine correct shapes of the stress and the dynamics.

When Kisshomaru wrote about spherical and spiral motion this is what he spoke of. Spheroidal waves are applicable because, topologically, your body is a deformed version of the actual three-layer sphere it once was.

Technically, what I described was a spheroidal wave S-mode torque conversion. I don't use those terms to sound impressive or to go over your head, but because they have a precise, objective, unambiguous meaning and you can look them up without relying on me or any claim of authority. You can have valid images of action that is occurring in your body in a simplified and yet mechanically correct form. If I am wrong you can call me on it -- in those terms -- which are just as available to you as to me -- with only a very little study.

S-mode waves involve radial and horizontal displacements/stresses like uniform expansion/contraction oscillation -- like a breathing balloon; or oblate/prolate oscillation - (a ball going from squashed sphere to a football and back); T-mode is purely tangential and either torsional or toroidal -- toroidal is harder to envision -- but is a donut wave travelling from pole to pole of the sphere and back, dissipating a the midpoint and concentrating at the extremity -- these relate to fajin.

The two modes also relate to one another, but that's enough for your question.